T H E O R Y

‘Let it therefore be boldly stated that the REVIEW has a

TROUBLES
“call”, a call of quite a low-class evangelical kind. [...]
Underneath its more obvious aims, running through them
and linking them together, is another less tangible one,
which may be described by the words, visual re-education'.
IN THEORY T h e E d it o r s , The A r c h ite c tu r a l R eview . J a n u a r y 1 9 4 7 .

Introducing The Architectural Review's January 1947

TORT 2: issue, the editors - JM Richards, Nikolaus Pevsner,

Osbert Lancaster and Hubert de Cronin Hastings -
celebrated the start of the ‘second half century’ of

PICTURESQUE TO the AR’s publication with a bold policy statement. The

‘Modern Movement in architecture’ was accepted as ‘being
made of very stem stuff indeed’, freeing the AR to widen

POSTMODERNISM its scope. Side by side with the obligation to provide a

‘third programme’ for architecture, the editors affirmed,
was the strong mission to educate the public in the art of
The first article in this series sketched a broad architecture, to act ‘in the cause of visual culture’. What
that meant was made clear by a reference to the ‘great
picture of the forms taken by architectural visual educator’ Uvedale Price, a model for understanding
theory after the Second World War. The the ‘visual experience’ bound to the ‘pursuit of the visual
life’ presented in ‘landscape and townscape’.
second part focuses on the post-war period The ‘First Half Century’ had seen the ‘drama’ of the
Modern Movement, summarised in two ‘acts’ by Pevsner
up to the birth of Postmodernism in the mid in a pictorial resume of his own Pioneers o f the Modern
1970s. In particular, it examines the AR’s Movement (1936): Act I, where Ruskin, Morris and the Arts
and Crafts Movement had prepared the ground had been
revival of the principles of the Picturesque, followed by Act H, tracing ‘the natural development of
and how they could be applied to the city, fresh visual symbols’, and the acceptance of new building
techniques. But a third act was needed to bring true
beginning with surveys of bomb damage and visual principles to technological expression: this would
bring back that most English of English traditions, the
refined through the prism of Townscape. Picturesque, studied not only in landscape design but ‘in
This presaged the first truly Postmodern relation to the new problems of urban landscape’. This act
would reinstate the main plot - to recapture ‘the scope
theory of Collage City, published in 1975, and richness’ discarded by the modern revolution and to
work for a re-humanisation - the building up of tradition:
marking the return of historcism and a riposte ‘new richness and differentiation of character, the pursuit
to the dehumanising tendancies of Moderism of differences rather than sameness, the re-emergence of
monumentality, the cultivation of idiosyncrasy, and the
A N T H O N Y V ID L E R development of those regional dissimilarities that people
have always taken a pride in.’ He concluded: ‘In fact
architecture must find a way of humanising itself as
regards expression without in any way abandoning
the principles on which the Revolution was founded.’
Modern architecture is ‘dominated by planning’ and
conceived in terms of ‘one coordinated scene’ —but has
not yet acquired ‘visual three-dimensional status, nor has
the new scale that the landscape element has introduced
into architecture been fully assimilated’. The visual allows
for a ‘continuity of tradition’ and ‘that historic precedent
can be used constructively, not as an escape’. In this
assertion of principle were bound up the complex strands
that were to preoccupy the AR over the next 30 years:
A u t h o r 's n o te attempting to account for the dedication to visual experience, the identification of
In essays of this series, the range of theoretical such experience with the themes buried in the English
I have adopted the interventions in postwar Picturesque, and the demand to make these pertinent and
position of Eric de Mar6, Scandinavia, Europe, graphically visible to the public at large; and the seeds of
who, in 1949, published Russia and the US.
And, like de Mar6,1 will
what Pevsner would observe some 14 years later, and not
throe articles towards
a new ‘canon’ in The be unable to come to a without some dismay, as the ‘return of historicism’ in what
Architectural Review, definitive conclusion... he called ‘Post Modern Movement’ architecture.

7 8 A R i JA N U A R Y 2012
D u rin g th e W ar, th e A R ran
s e v eral su rveys o f bom b
dam age to bu ildings 'o f
2. T h e
a r c h ite c tu r a l im p o rta n c e '.
P h o to g ra p h s and draw ings
o f sm o k in g ru in s w e re
o fte n a c co m p a n ied by
s u rp ris in g ly ly ric a l prose.
H e n c e 'th e P ic tu re s q u e
w as a llie d to th e te r r ib le
S u b lim e and pressed in to
th e se rv ic e s o f v is u al
r e -e d u c a tio n '. T h is sp read
is fro m J u ly 1941. T h e
'p o s t-m o d e rn ' p rin c ip le s
o f th e AR 's P ic tu re s q u e
and T o w n s cap e cam p aign s
IIU ItM U
p re fig u re d th e ge n u in ely
'P o s tm o d e rn ' th e o ry
o f C o llag e C ity , w h ich
w a s pu blis hed in A u g u st
1 9 7 5 , th e y e a r in w h ich
C h a rle s J e n c k s f ir s t
co ined th e n e w te rm
End of L a s t Time
I O \ l» » \
F U S T I NSTALMENT OF A S 0 1 T E T
OF B OMB DAMAGE TO B01 LDIN6 S
OF A R C H I T E C T 0 RAL I MPORTANCE
sm- ilut U i- nii4r«lm (
r\ mm ll <vri-|M in a lr»
$ f«~lU i', Th* lrihnir.il
il <Umus< In bnmhlnK Hj- »ri
,,.ir|—. -4 •llm fuic ptil.li. *ilri.lm» lo ibr pacniwKftn
|,u|,I h .Hlhu-ui*. I- bell llir liJlllr Si r u n if it unit rrpinlnl •
■immlu- in rflint* m ol V r VI4- -W'h »• «h«' ••InmiWr.Uivr ami Ircv-lathr
n n - IIn ilr*imi mm n r anmwl m h r > ter* «-*l |.U rr in IIn p»T-
HI IHum.n bi-in*. nl m um lm rlum |imeraiuair>.
• ll ■. tun rail* n-rli.tl. In rl»-*ll» Uinil. lUninsi- from ifcr |mini ..I
%»■*• ..r rrtmiMma. b«l » n-rfnl im w l t n purpim .an mm l~ nr*ml
In -ijilma in riauifl. fur nt ki-luri. m-«ril. I him- l.iiililm;:-
u| an hiti-rlunil ini|mrl.Mii • wWb lu ir hern ilamn-ril. Tn |ir««iil*'
■ibiludr. I.....nl- ..I -»rb buil-iing- •- a m k TH». *m tu r n n B.u hi i l l * frrU
uitjrr an .diliealnm In umb-nak.' ami ««•■ llial ran apjir.^irialrl* Hr -ijunl
in an n t r in nlnrli 1-n IIn kr*4 lime altrntinn i* Jiuul In im m r.ii-ni h* ibr
nar. (hr niiinVr nl im|ninanl ImiUiac* •lan.j;ml n. aim. u >n al that U
ha- hrrn tn r M n h. limit tin Mhariiq -nr*. * b* .ml* larM ing • • * In
• link .(aniagr Ha* hrrn *r*riv. IlnAit *imiim*. * 'Krhnl nail*. Inkil
rmil* ami • Hipp-'il •luin-n.irk all nhii b aiv "unim.ii -irht- mi n * n |wrt
•4 ibr raanir* air m lakm a* |u>lif«inp im'lii-iim. ll ha* abm brrn
■in|UMilib- In liral mill 4ium-.Ur Imibliur- full* aicauu brmpr of Ihr
r*K hi Ilf Ibr llama-1 IV rr iuiH . Iin runapli-. hr Immlimk nl ymul
mclil.i'iilli ami rarl* ninrtrrnlli ..-niur> n-ma-r hmm% that llutr -nth mi.
and Minnm. rabb -lirrl- ami n(Ua«r- air .p.all a* j.rli.ir. lur.l rump nili—■
b* ibr -uu-huac uf a -ittslr hit** hrrr ami ibrrr. In Ibr Inllimme ya^i*
■ml* •mlilamlin: . **ni|ilr> air illmlnuri!. nf nbn-h I arllmi ll.t u Trrrarr.
t.ml.ui* -i|n.irr ami ibr Inn- nl l.inivl ma* br lakrn a* I* jural r*ii.i|>ln.
1 Inrtbrr I- nf -m b Imiblli*;- a- dirk-ami narrbumr*. a ra(alu-nr
nf IV .iamaqr limbirb ..aliirall. . a.m.a V r il.li-h. .1 Inf -lralr.;i. n r .u r
In -jiilr .4 IV abiivr anil in -pilr all -m-h nmlins-iwl a* the lalVr
athitran IM r " lluiMinu- "I Vriliilmtuval hnpurtanrr albm- ,mr In Ju.
IIn numlu-r nf .larnaj.il bn4i Ilap- ibal ihnrrvv ail .il.ilunr* nnlirr -Iill
r.niaim Ltijtr: ami ilamaer nnba|.|iil* >-ml in m ■<> ,« n t ... that n i t a
-ni*r* ib.il rtuiiui-4 tn V burl* .,.m|4.-l*. -lira it nat <.mi|iil»l nn-hl V
it a|i|- HTv.l in print Tbt* i* Ibrrrfwr null
CITIES OF THE IfflND
I t i s not o ften th at, we han d over h i l f T he A rchitec tu ra l
R eview to a v is itin g firem an W e do so in th is c a s e b ec au se
C olin Rowe is n o t m erely a lo n g s ta n d in g AR c o n trib u to r, b u t
is a t once e n te rta in in g an d d u tm g im h o d . a n d holds view s
w h ich we s u b s ta n tia lly s h a re 'C ollage C ity is concerned
w ith t h e a e s th e tic problem s of city pla n n in g . D u rin g th e Last
8 0 y e a rs o r so we h av e been Uvm g u n d e r t h e shadow o f t h e
n o tio n o f ‘to ta l p la n n in g ', o f th a city conceived a s a single,
p la n n e d d e sig n T h o u g h th e re hi is nevf r been th e op p o rtu n ity
o f c a rry in g o u t th is notion in all i t s fu lln e s s th ere h a v e been
m an y p a r tia l o p p o rtu n itie s an d th e n o tio n h a i provided th e
e x c u s e fo r a n im m ense am o u n t of city d e s ti ne tion.
C olin Rowe ta k e s th e view t h a t t h e W e s te rn city i b above
a ll a co m p a ct of sm all re alisatio i s and <uncom pleted pu rp o se s
T h o u g h th e re a r e self-contained a r c h itic tu r n l n et pieces, lik e
th e p lu m s in a p u d ding, w hich c r e a te sm a ll hom ogeneous
e n v iro n m e n ts , th e o verall p ic tu re iB one in w h ich a r c h ite c t
u r a l in te n tio n s c o n s ta n tly 'colli le ’: a n i h e s u g g e s t s t h a t wc
sh o u ld le a rn to ta k e m ore pleas ire in -his w holesom e fact, of
a r c h ite c tu ra l ex p e rien c e th a n a i y e t we do
T h e on ly rid e r t h a t w e would w ah tc id d to t.iis d o c trm o is
t h a t t h e r e a re c e rta in ‘collision.-' w hich, a s it were, e n h a n c e
th e m u tu a lly colliding p a rtie s a r d o th e rs w hich d e s tro y th e m
M o d em p ra c tic e , w ith i t s ex ag g n ratec. d isconcom for th e p re ­
e x is tin g . h a s g iv en rise to too m je h of th e doat m o tiv e s o rt of
collision. F o r f r u itfu l collisions th e re m u st be am o n g arc h i
te c ta a re v iv a l of th e topograph, c sen se
C olin Rowe tu r n s from th e a e s th e tic s of c ity m a k in g to th e
a e s th e tic s o f a r c h ite c tu ra l sty le p ‘ep o se s :h e id e a o f th e
a r c h ite c t a s a 'b ric o le u r': t h a t r ni u i w ho p ick s u p itnm s
w hich h a v e been c a s t aw ay and th e m t o new u s e s . W e
th in k t h i s a n a p t m e ta p h o r for i .a a n t a rc h ite c tu ra l a ttitu d e ,
th e m ore so for a g e n e ra tio n w hich is s e e k in g to re co v er for
t h e ir a r t i t s tra d itio n a l ric h n e s s a n d p a rtic u la rity .
AR | JANUARY 2012 79
THEORY
From its 'w ar address' in
Cheam, the AR surveys a
brave new post-w ar world
in August I9 4 S
8 0 A R I JA N U A R Y 2012
However, the principles outlined in ‘The Second Half
Century’, had in fact been developed by Hubert de Cronin
Hastings writing as ‘The Editor’ in February 1944 under
the title ‘Exterior Furnishing or Sharawaggi: the Art of
Making Urban Landscape’. Here, Hastings harked back
to ‘the time of Ebeneezer Howard and Raymond Unwin’
and the image of the garden city, whence derived the
image of the popular picture of the ‘semi-Tudor’, which
maintained traction 50 years later.
Hastings noted that England was no longer looked to
as ‘head of international inspiration in architecture’ as it
had been at the time of the Arts and Crafts Movement.
Planners had ‘failed to provide an alternative picture
comparable in realism, vividness or simplicity’, while
technological, or transportation-based, models of the
culture could not sustain ‘Mr Brown’ who ‘wants a picture
of the kind of world the physical planner will make, and
up to date has been given nothing between Port Sunlight
and MARS’. There was, Hastings argued, a serious need
for ‘a picture’ that would ‘reconcile visually in the mind’s
eye what appear to be irreconcilable elements in any town
plan: quaint bits, new bits, monuments, traffic, tall
buildings, short buildings, flat blocks, individual cottages.’
Thus he advanced a solution, ‘Picturesque Theory’,
as it evolved in England during the 18th century and
H o ln m r £ in r t u d ig ljt
was internationalised in the early 19th century. ‘What sh 4
we really need to do now,’ he suggested, is ‘to resurrect
the true theory of the Picturesque and apply a point of
AlKill.ST
view already existing to a field in which it has not been w ti «ddj«K : lorry-»»• tha c h u rn , n m y
consciously applied before: the city’. He admitted that
this would demand ‘a revolution in taste’, and therefore
supplied a photo essay as a means of developing the
elements of this revived theory. Photographs illustrated
the idea of the ‘street-picturesque’, which encapsulated
‘the liveliness of the Picturesque street, whose chimneys,
odd roof angles, protruding bows, trees and shrubs
chiaroscuro, some distant eye-catcher closing the vista
constitute a genuine piece of urban landscape’; the old and
the new ‘a contrast of complementarities’; the success and
failure of accident as opposed to the ‘visual laissez-faire’,
which produced ‘a mining-camp not an urban landscape’.
M o dels fo r th e P icturesque
In a masterstroke of prospective nostalgia, Hastings
concluded by taking as his model for such theory, that of
Uvedale Price and Richard Payne Knight, as described in
Christopher Hussey’s ‘The Picturesque’. The art of the
Landscape Picturesque was, he claimed, identical to what
the Chinese called ‘Sharawaggi’ or irregular gardening.
Landscape should be observed with the painter’s eye
(he cited Claude Lorrain, Salvator Rosa, John Piper, John
Nash, Edward Bawden, Eric Ravilious, Christopher Wood,
Kenneth Rowntree - painters o f‘urban scenery’) against
those who see ‘the new Jerusalem all open space and
concrete’. This series of dialectical photographs, would
lead, he hoped, to a ‘visual policy for urban landscape’,
one that was ‘natural to the English temperament’. He
concluded: ‘Any time he so desires the modern town-
planner is free to pick up Picturesque theory at the point
before its corruption by the Gothic Revival; pick up the
theory, rediscover its prophets, and apply the principles.’
‘What we need to do now,’ Perhaps the most dramatic of these early appeals
to the Picturesque, was published immediately following
Hubert de Cronin Hastings the London blitz and entitled ‘The Architecture of
Destruction’. An introduction by the artist John Piper
suggested, is ‘to resurrect the sketched the impression ofLondon s ruins: ‘Roads
theory of the Picturesque and blocked, warehouses still burning’. The article was
illustrated by photographs of the bombed-out shells of
apply a point of view already churches and offices, taken the morning after the raid,
‘a sea of smoking rubble’. These terrifying images, were,
existing to a field in which it however, accompanied by a surprising commentary. The
has not been consciously ‘transparent shell’ of a comer building exhibits ‘drama’;
Paternoster Square and Aye Maria Lane are seen as
applied before: the city’ ‘examples of the surprising proportions of air-raid
scenery’; the north of St Paul’s has been transformed into
a ‘grotto’; stone calcined by fire has a ‘peculiar quality’;
‘striking motifs’ are observed in window less arcades.
The article ends by noting ‘the surprising poetry of
destruction: the oddity of a newly bombed interior and
the almost gaiety, like a scene in a French film, of a garden
in next morning’s sunshine’. These were rains looked at
‘with an artist’s eye’, as architecture in their own right,
exhibiting ‘an intensive evocative atmosphere’, to be
admired ‘frankly for their own beauty’. This was the
Picturesque allied to the terrible Sublime, and pressed
into the service of visual re-educatic n with a vengeance.
These articles were to anticipate many pieces devoted,
on the one hand, to the theory of the Picturesque, and on
the other to Townscape. Hastings, under the pseudonym
Ivor de Wolfe, wrote on Townscape, basing his theory on
Uvedale Price’s ‘An Essay on the Picturesque’ (1794),
prefacing a pictorial essay by Gordo n Cullen, entitled
‘Townscape Casebook’, the beginnings of Cullen’s powerful
role as popular illustrator of the principles. Pevsner wrote
on the Picturesque, countering Basil Taylor’s assertion
that it represented ‘an imperfect vis on’, and claiming
that the Modern Movement itself had its roots in the
aesthetic and demonstrating his thesis by reference to
Le Corbusier’s informal grouping of houses at Stuttgart.
Hastings’s article on Townscape, was unambiguous:
‘The movement that used to be called Functionalism has
developed an inner schism in wThich one party [figurehead
Le Corbusier] has moved towards the rational or classic
or crystalline solution; the other [Frank Lloyd Wright]
towards the romantic or, as he would say, organic [...]
There is a third movement so far not isolated by the critics
[...] might be called English or Radical since it belongs to
neither of the above categories [...] the war cry ‘irregular’
this needs a ‘case-book’ like the case book of common law.
An aesthetic theory had been presen ted with the claim
that it was as English as the ‘common law’ of the country.
That such a theory was implicitly counter - if not
Postmodern, was demonstrated by the furious response
of Alan Colquhoun to Pevsner’s claim that Le Corbusier
himself was influenced by the Picturesque; Colquhoun
retorted Pevsner’s Le Corbusier was an entirely visual
fabrication, and owed nothing to the internal ideational
content of the architecture. But Colquhoun was himself
working out of the image of Le Corbu sier fashioned by
Colin Rowe —that of a ‘Modernist’ manipulating the
geometries of Palladian plans and the imbricated
techniques of Mannerist facades within a vocabulary

A B I J A N U A R Y 2012 81
THEORY

Jo h n P ip e r's su rv e y o f of P u ris t abstraction. Rowe, as has become evident, was,

c o lo u r in th e P ic tu re s q u e
v illa g e , p a r t o f a re g u la r
s e rie s o f c o lo u r in
bu ildings w ith e v o ca tive
d raw in g s by th e a r tis t.
S h a ra w a g g i. ‘th e a r t o f
m a k in g urb a n la n d s c a p e ’,
w a s fir s t ex pou nd ed in
J a n u a ry 1 9 4 4 , pres ag in g
th o A lt's To w n s cap e
cam p aig n s o f th e '5 0 s and
'6 0 s , an d e v e n tu a lly th e
C o llag e C ity iss u e o f 1 9 7 5
in w h ic h C o lin R o w e and
like his contem porary in a rt history Clem ent Greenberg,
him self m aking up th e constituents of a ‘M odernism’ th a t
was in its unifying form al characteristics, far from th e
heterogeneous w orks of th e avant-gardes in th e 1920s
and ’30s. In essence, as F redric Jam eson has noted, th e
‘M odernism’ of th e 1950s was an ideology invented to
justify a concept (‘flatness’ for G reenberg, ‘m annerism ’
for Rowe) by m eans of a reverse reading of history. This
‘P o st’ Modern Movement ideology, in its tu rn was to •r::.
inspire a second reverse reading: th a t of ‘Postm odernism ’.
W hile th is characteristic of post-W orld W ar th eo ry was
not im m ediately evident a t the tim e, today th e apparently C O LO UR IN THE P IC T U R E S Q U E V IL L A G E

F re d K o e tte r prop osed th e
n o tio n o f th e a rc h ite c t
as b ric o le u r, co n n e c tin g
th e a o s th e tic s o f m a k in g
c itie s w ith th e a e s th e tic s
o f a r c h ite c tu r a l style.
T h is m a rk e d th e begin nin g
oppositional n atu re of Rowe and K o etter’s Collage City
to Townscape, appears less abrupt. Indeed, as John
M acA rthur has recently dem onstrated, the sim ilarities
betw een a visual theory of urban com position from ground Whra m o li n b a
n " .me of Ihr pretbrat in England," y oftm do, how tar ore
they echoing Ilir aewtilUents of III.' Pi.
level (Cullen’s Townscape) and a visual theory based iso \ ta n «*«• A ir thry r
wn-ptrd rode f Mow M idi l
nniaday* fhr oorcptixl COWVMtM
on aerial photography and figure-ground plans (Rowe’s * i the nmlornt help «r *-

o f th e 'n e w ' th e o r y o f
P o s tm o d e rn is m , w h ich
w a s e n th u s ia s tic a lly
coded and d issec ted
by C h a rle s J e n c k s
Collage City) are m ore striking th an th eir differences.
In this context, it is logical to find R obert V enturi’s first
article published under the rubric Townscape in th e May
1953 issue of th e AR. E n titled ‘The Campidoglio: A Case
Study’, Venturi’s thesis was entirely visual, and concerned
w ith the way the character of Michelangelo’s form alising
- thr airfare tw geological feature of the m-ighhtmrhoo.1. ^Stone,
of th e Campidoglio had been ‘injured’ by ignorance of th e
principle th a t ‘the architect has a responsibility tow ard
th e landscape, which he can subtly enhance or impair, for
we see in perceptual wholes and th e introduction of any
k-huuk n hrv v|»-LrMi.nii.
mn. lint a*
•• every fiuhb
guhle-buok ie
- . . . . . . -.'redale Price. It u one of the prmriptea tli»l <
«j«« by every traveller, planner. artist Mid heal inhabitant. because
il ha* year* .if tradition and preredrnl behind it.
I Hour ran make or spoil the ptettinr** of it village. And it
Hear from louritfV rxpcrirorr. and flora eunanloit pud* Im *
leading that to d a y ax rrcgm ar. or naintmance. three d»tilwt
tvprv id pirtun-Miur colour in gmuw of budding*.
I. An unvaried, nr ktllr-varying. minor thnaighratl thr group.
■hut lias a cion
X t'ok ai is that ai
lor white) tha
S Sentimental pain to * ' colour*.
0*iun uf thr Ant group air round m all tlmar villages limit mainly
of Ileal materials, o? any age. Hie local material* echo thr clo u r uf
whether vandslonr or granitr. repeat, die c tu n r of neighbouring
qusrnrs. track* and Held wall. ; Umber frame cm adrurita with
hrak or |diwtrr filling in wxwllaml .tislnct* .-chore the*® *"?**
hw* »nd tilled aw l; brick ami flint buddings in .Iwtnct* where chalk
•0.1 Hay eoovTTgc. rrtlret the o n e light that ghoue, freon the IHnis
lying in chalky ptouglml A dds; and v. on. th e chief charneteretie
*< Uni type of idctumopir village n lluit thrrr arc no violent cofcmr
omtimts with the surixam.li.qp: the v.llagc h»k> m t t i t h-d
*w-»n fn.m the *uil. IU beauty spring* hum dm f*,'t ,h“*
interference with nature t* camouflaged fnan the start, and

new building will change th e character of all th e oth er

elem ents in a scene’. Venturi, in a series of figure-ground
plans and sections, dem onstrated th e point. Michelangelo
had modified the piazza so th e original senatorial palace
was given em phasis by ‘the contrasting elem ents of [the
flanking buildings] colour and texture, and th e neutral,
even rhythm of th e ir colum ned facades.’ The intrusion of
the huge, V ittorio Em anuel Monument, a ‘shiny monster,’
had destroyed the setting w ith its ‘intricate, small-scale
neighbourhoods,’ and thus th e effect of th e ascent to th e
Campidoglio itself ending in th e powerfully visually
controlled piazza, as well as th e view from th e top, which
‘form erly offered views tantalisingly in terru p ted w ith rich,
unaffected architectural foregrounds’.
The transition from th e visual theory of Townscape to
th a t of Postm odernism w as effected by th is move, from
urban context to th e single building, aided by th e sense in
the early 1960s th a t architecture had lo st itself among
the different ways it had sought to ju stify its social and
technological role. W hen in 1966, Venturi published th e
w ork th a t he had begun in 1954 in Rome, the shift was
‘Colin Rowe was, like his
com plete. U nder th e guise of retu rn in g to an original contemporary in art history
autonom y for architecture, he catalogued the ways th e
contem porary discipline might regain some of th e richness Clement Greenberg, making np
lost through m odernist abstraction, and all th e techniques
em ployed by H astings, Pevsner an d Cullen to revive the
the constituents of a ‘Modernism’
visual com plexity and contrasts of th e u rban scene were that was in its unifying formal
used to restore visual complexity to the single building.
characteristics, far from the
T h e f i r s t p a r t o f th is tr ilo g y w a s p u b lis h e d in O c to b e r 2 0 1 1.
T h e fin a l p a r t w ill a p p e a r la t e r in t h e s p rin g . T h e o r y p ie c e s fr o m
heterogeneous work of the
th e a r c h iv e c a n b e fo u n d a t a r c h ite c tu r a l-r e v ie w .c o m /a r c h iv e avant-garde in the 1920s’
8 2 AR I JANUARY 2012

COLLAGECITY
Colin Row*
Frwt Ko*tt*r
»nut ai many rcata ago that the
I of Bwign al Harvard vmmd a brochure
ul ft am* an opuiarl ftoAwScm.
• “a ground, and B*
1 neaqu' Ttwaw 'lw'» »•>
nt llw Graduate School ol
m u iii,n,in-f unOTof the knaw k'iw to be able
protauind Uie aohttkm. and. tbeerfoca, In t«Ocr
it It mar rrolbe ita miadco. «rt«. »» •hl'
iduatc School of Dtalgn- . Now Urn notice al bow Die toohniquri „i
c aUolagy, irf couw. It'll'"" <o
noUnnaa, appaientiy to be irtaMMild* and
i the jwyohe
a;
roatwn. the hope if t^ralioo limoaubte
nge which atill twqimra human o-opuaUou
1new oroldtocUir* and orban!am aa
he new Jeruakirtn Tha corrupt Kina id high
lure, lilt bunAre of vanitba. 8eir.t.raotoco-
ie toward! a fun* of o.Uectiviae.1 freedom
• arcbitect, dicrated of hi* ctibnral waidroho
I fretiflwl hf the equtvakmt of reb*tou»
lenoa. mar la.w revert to the virtu#* of hb
EXTERIOR
or ah a ra w a g g l:
Vt}Km
in* of llu. country
■ d a n .to th tafc
hroil of ritrmaliumil impwathin in
etch itret on M.»l of On under aialira have
forgotten Ihut there n o a lime a linn,
not nt nil km* ago when from Chiroi
Vienna the nichitcct, the deni,-net. Ihr
mftMunn mol the " art-lover " looked upon
England «» the headquarter* of an eathrtte
revolution It nan the tune nf Vagary's
(mttaan ami Moma'a, Crane'a, Voyacya
•mi Markinliah . iltMgu. ; of the Ktlma-
entt ami the Iho ................
Heal hnia ami ,
Though the oral of thou
aiehiterta hare hy
areejMe.l atork in in
mentan urn ami t<
dull people all over Europe
their aetivilm, arm agamat
background of iti<-lropoht>
middle . la., duffed ahlrteiii
rcvnbiiinmiry Mooli of whnt they elaal
waa dune In hrlu Rally Brown, the Little
Man. and BUI Brown. tl-------L-
live a deeent life in de
by-product of their lakmn a kind of
popular im-ture lone that oonaulorably dn
ioetrd the original .warn) of the ideal
‘ " “ » Brown*, if they
, waa a world of
dent little bud haunted itreeta. craiv-
quiltcd with arnu - Tudor or acini •
Voyaey or (latrrj aenu-tieorgun cottage*
ami cot Iage garden. If England were good,
it wa* hinied, all Ihe Htvwna miglit in tin-
courar nf time ami provided of count they
remained rtgrdlv rrametahlr. eapeet to rani
up in tome Garden City. Juat aa *U good
Ameneana when they die are auppoaed to
go to Pam. to Engliahinen if they were
clean might be demwd fit for Lrlrhwurth
For town planner* of that day tire garden
city become u Sign and n Symbol, and it ia
atill the dream of the Little Man, kept
alight in Ida breaat, aa it waa klmlled and
turned, by the Garden Cities Awn union
rr the ideal of prnfeaaiooal
t b no longer even the
r of the Garden Citree
Thin K to caricature. Ihmqji not a-rtnal, „
dbtort. a c-jiuplei of amitimeau which might te
i. ugnaied Ike Savonarola ayialroma. reat,.t .w.
often lying junt Imneaih the thnahoki .<
without -urptrae that one obntrvro * re
H im journal—yr* again Crab ilhh time
letter* on 1 Mtto* F>“u»d). uml Uii* tin,.
appeal for money but rather an incitem™
nuiilio «)f flagellation
erudrel raerraiitm have been to much m#.
bv what tiaed to be onlktd the Modern Mover
ia wither to deplore urude remain*,
eeauoy end the guilt of tha iateat AppaUo
roneerti, nor l* It. aMogclhrr, to depre
modern arehltevture; and. ocetainiy, it
DtU he nndenrtood a* condemning a t n u * . ,
eothuuafio or intimating that oonricitoiu rf
critat ore in any way llluaory It mav be pre«
that a crt(b eiinto; but it tnuut also le loti
that tha peddling of i-riiti* by the areJiiltet
twglna to become on objeotomabio platitud,
that it il now one of thoae retarded gambill ,,j
ortudom which any arnae of obligation dumb
feel obliged to avoid.
FURNISHING
tho art
By the Editor
k m tk tk m hwidigkl eudMAII.V It ea raking loo mini,
‘•f liini 10 vaprtt bun In put In. aturt on
line of Town and Country T Uniting MAHS Him. room! llte Ihaw i. a pirtun
team lotion Signtliranl indeed « that
change of name (which tiaik place durui* Iut rvmrr nweialamn.
, l---------, WM.j tejnxmiMna aa it • on the If Ihw armimcnl b nglit. mu id tin ulal
hy the mind doctrinaire of plan­ Otir.li.nii the ptofrMtonal Idannrr ha. to
ning Indira that V.me'lung n a n tg with '•ah liimaeIf In day b : Car I Aral a picture
.1. i '• jdnit Sinnrl long r , It la Ihat Will give toy nun tcrhmrnl frltow
At u phyiN-al vJi linn to t minify men a vivid impte.oini of ike (oral
ming rail of Ihr Inlnatnal thmga nauing In them, if the) give me llw
i« aboul aa rlhclctit aa the rhanee I ark f t. Hut Irliav hr ran itu Ihnt
il In the IIncur final d early Ihr planner lunar If aunt I a n a partner
And by thr word ptttmn- mrwul Iriunllv
/ , on il hr la - • picture , a ptrturr of how hw limn will
in n prolion In put aunielliing r h ‘ in ita talk For tku b the natural way people
tdaci the nnah-rn planner will wit be ihtth up un llw way liny thriiiarlci* will
llalrnetl to when lie eapeara the fatally lod Thr (harden fit} propugai.l. pnivbfc-d
of the garden <ity idea In ila dny it jn*l thia. a pMnre , hut we do mil think II
hnd Hie virtue* of ita hniilalnuia ; it minted Inn much In aay tin t few itii gwrHeuwIty
a auUd picture of wreil-brtng. tiftlier too lamina ham any concept me of Ihe way
I
highly euloured nor too high falw m’ fur her mean Iti.nga to look. W« think non!
Hill Brown to hilrh lot waggon to Aa a toww-pianlam an Ihrmwlvra ponied and
'I it gained (be naliiamlear, m rather rmharmaard hy their lock id nalwUe > « « .
•hr national eye The picture nay be their tiuUbbl. I., moorrle i.ualf* in thr
« one in that it ia an over-aln plulrn M b f a ere what appear t.. be iirmnuiilalde
clear. clear rnmrgl to he rlnnrni. in any town plan quaint bin.
•• far the modem a lentiAe lew bit*, inunumenla Iraltli lull InuldMiga,
haa failed to provide an abort huildinga. Rot Stocki. iniilvidiinl
nllernativc picture comparable In raliam, • ottagra. ete.. etc.
vivalnvaa or aunpttoity. Iinogtii an Yet and tile purpmr nf Ihn article i. to
rvhihitiun in which two model, on leant il iail three t> an aapert of th»
r iatlre wldrh wwtua iu hair been Wu-apla-
.bly ovmbwki d by town plannerv II la the
Iaei. obi mum In forngaa n and Inatieiaiaa,
i u t n national peciuremakmg aplMude
n u b among in. and him done for eentunra.
In /Vforragar TVor*. croh-cd on tho bland
eaHy m llw eightimUi ceutuey aiul umtotml
all over Kurnpe muml aboul I MSI, a uuile
inmmtakable rnitmual pant id rlew
aocrled itaelf. Il waa eiqavaanl «l Unit
tkchniieiv in landarapm* improiwnienta nf
private gnmuda ami country calater, and
though in the mnctccnlh oentury certain
of living dona not really eliange. w uilever ml ita eouientiona weir apukrai to Ulr town
Idr (lintion may any And ai Bill Brown r piarv. the wvil to de. luburh anil the
guc* toe the ideal he know#, hrnmar ‘ihat he garden rity. there were in (nrma w iMwued
want* a a pletuer that maker troae o Iran. aa to polity one in aaying that true
It im't that he n a fool ; hr » quite lyctureaque thcorv hat nn-rr Iwen applied
capable of imagining Ihr cnmpiint i*a in
hervnt iu plaiinmg. even of making m rrifirr* Wl.nl wi' i roll; nerd lo do now. Ibb
for the greater good of Ihe greater cumber, article auggeata. it to rckurml the Inn
but he cannot, he feel*, hr raprrtrd 1.1do hb theory of lie Pinturraque atul apply a
port without Inin* given an Idea, a pretty point nf view already ranting to a told m
,U, g .k.l il H .11 L..U. ... i.'. which It lioa not bent .enm nilv apiiiled
a picture of the kind of wi before ; Me rtfg. Thia will dchiaod no
.dannrr will make and up iKVahaUun in taatr The only diflleulty
Ween given nothing letw> r ally b that the ptrturewqua d ia w lH of
Alt | JANUARY 2012 83
Copyright of Architectural Review is the property of EMAP Publishing Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.